system_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns data and lists included items, but it does not explicitly say it is read-only, nor does it mention any permissions, limitations, or side effects. For a simple info tool, the behavior is mostly clear, but the lack of explicit safety disclosure is a minor gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three short paragraphs: the main action, a bullet-like list of fields, and an example. This is appropriately minimal and front-loaded, with no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (no parameters) and has an output schema (as indicated in context). The description states the return type and high-level structure (status, data). It could mention potential platform differences or errors, but for a simple system info call, it is sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, for which the baseline is 4. The example 'system_info()' makes this explicit, and the empty input schema needs no further explanation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Return comprehensive system information' and enumerates specific fields (OS version, hostname, uptime, Python version, architecture, processor brand). It positions the tool as a general-purpose system info aggregator distinct from specific info tools like cpu_info or disk_info, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools such as cpu_info, disk_info, memory_info, or python_version. There are no alternatives mentioned, no exclusions, and no scenario-based guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.